Because in reality there isn't an overwhelming preponderance of evidence to suggest that the moon landings DID happen? I mean, I think it's ridiculous to suggest they didn't. But there would have been reasons for the government to falsify a moon landing, and there's really no way to prove that they didn't. All of our evidence that it happened - grainy video, distorted sound clips, etc. - could very easily have been produced on Earth. Could have just put some guys into orbit, which we know we could do, then had the "evidence" produced and land the guys in an ocean. Not very tricky. Again, I don't think it happened, but I wouldn't be 100% shocked to learn that it had. The motivation was there, and there isn't any real proof that the whole thing wasn't made up to scare the Soviets and motivate/excite the American people. There IS an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that the Earth is over four and a half billion years old, and the people who argue that it isn't lean heavily on bad science and refuse to listen to the refutations of their arguments. Hell, Bistiza has just demonstrated that people are STILL throwing that C14 argument around even though the manufacture of C14 from N14 has long since been not only suggested but replicated in a laboratory AND we can see a gradient up through the atmosphere helping demonstrate that it's clearly being created in the upper atmosphere on a consistent basis. There is NO credible, falsifiable scientific evidence for a young earth, and vast amounts of evidence for an old earth. And frankly, it ****** me off when people with PhDs intentionally mislead the general public towards something they little more than wish to be true by pointing consistently to science they have to know to be bad. This isn't bistiza's fault, it's the fault of people thought to be experts in the field who convince them with handwavy arguments because they lack the personal scientific knowledge to know any better. OTOH, I would feel much worse for bistiza if he weren't trying to do the same thing in the field of economics.

I've seen some television programs which analyzed the "fake moon landing" theory and scientifically debunked it. Basically, we did not have the technology in 1969 to fake the videos well enough to hold up after 43 years of scrutiny.

The fact that carbon-14 should break down to virtually nothing past a certain point in terms of dates and yet it is difficult to find carbon without carbon-14, which with an old earth model should be virtually non-existent much of the time.

dahs already covered this. Carbon 14 is produced in the atmosphere. Not sure why you would think it would be non-existent.

The fossil record shows many strata of rock which are thought to be formed over "millions of years" can actually form quite quickly. Sometimes there are fossils, including petrified trees, which span straight through several layers indicating they may have formed quite suddenly.

Yes. And over time, science debunked these notions. To attempt to portray yourself as open-minded because you can see both sides of the flat earth vs round earth "issue" is ridiculous. Your young earth "theory" falls into this category.

The difference is that there is scientific evidence to support a young earth model (I listed some before in the other thread, but I'm not going to rehash it now), just as there is to support an older earth model. THAT is why I remain neutral on the subject.

The problem is that too many people can't look at the evidence from anything remotely resembling an unbiased point of view, and you're obviously among them.

You take the word of mainstream science as unquestioned gospel, which is surprising in this day and age when you can easily look up evidence for any and all scientific theories if you so desire.

Yet instead of reading the information with an open mind, you accept what has been spoon-fed to you and spew it back out without ever looking at any of it with a critical eye or thinking for yourself.

I guess I can understand why you do that. The pressure to conform and join the group think is enormous. After all, if you dare to think for yourself and somehow come to a conclusion other than that of the majority - even if you don't take a side - someone like bad_luck may attack you mercilessly and most people would rather avoid dealing with those kinds of issues.

"The difference is that there is scientific evidence to support a young earth model (I listed some before in the other thread, but I'm not going to rehash it now), just as there is to support an older earth model. THAT is why I remain neutral on the subject."

Horseshit. I'm not sure where you posted your "evidence," though I'd just about bet you have some of Duane Gish's nonsense in there. In any case, the thermodynamics objections have long been part of the creationist literature (btw, can we stop pretending this "young earth" crap is anything but a prelude to creationism?) and has long since been discredited. Ironic that you don't want to rehash what you posted in another thread, but scientists are supposed to keep answering an objection that was debunked before you were born, ad infinitum, just so you can pretend you're discussing a "competing" theory.

And I haven't even mentioned the countless areas of well established science that need to be thrown out to accommodate your crackpotology, I'm sorry, "theory." Biology, geology, radiocarbon dating, for starters. But the best part is that we are apparently contemporaries of the dinosaurs. To paraphrase Lewis Black, I can't be kind about this, because bis is watching The Flintstones as if it were a documentary.

As for the masturbatory drivel that is paragraphs 2-5 of your post, it scarcely merits a response. I will say I'm reminded of the words of John Dewey. He argued that genuine open-mindedness is like being hospitable to guests; it is not tantamount to putting a sign out saying, "Come on in, no one's home."

I told you the debate is over many times. You'll just have to learn how to deal with it.

You dropped the ball.

No. I popped the ball, forced all the air out of it, and then shredded it completely. I did this on purpose, and no amount of begging or pleading will make me bring out a new ball for you to play with. So again, you'll have to deal with it.

You're done here.

I'll decide when I'm done here (or at the very least, you certainly won't).

The same way I decided the debate wasn't going to restart.

When you realize I've been in control of the whole thing all along, maybe you'll finally realize you aren't accomplishing anything that is good for you.

Yet, the debate continues, because you keep it alive. Every time you post, everyone reading this is reminded of the fact that you think the earth is 10,000 years old. And then they see the "evidence" that you posted (and later deleted) that I keep reposting.

The debate has been dead for a long time. You keep begging for it to be brought back to life, but it never happens.

If you think my pointing out your failures and watching you squirm is "keeping it alive" then you have less grasp of what is going on here than I even thought you had - and I thought you had next to zero grasp on it to begin with.

Every time you post, everyone reading this is reminded of the fact that you think the earth is 10,000 years old.

Couple of points for you to think about:

First, you're once again trying to twist what I said. I said I'm neutral on the subject, which is completely different from what you state here. Once again you try to play games and twist things and I point out how you're wrong.

Second, I have no problem at all with anyone knowing my stance on the subject (provided they know my true stance and not your twisted BS). I'm proud of being someone who thinks for himself and isn't a pathetic sheep following the masses off the cliff of commonly accepted information. I don't care what ignorant bullies such as yourself (and several others here) think of me or my opinions, because your ignorance shows how little you matter.

What people are also reminded of is how you lost the debate when you gave up (your first failure). They also get to see how you beg to restart the debate and fail to get that from me (a second failure). They also get to see your ignorant childish bullying tactics, such as insults and name calling. Two huge failures and the knowledge that you're an ignorant child are not good things, and yet they are your only accomplishments here.

The debate has been dead for a long time. You keep begging for it to be brought back to life, but it never happens.

If you think my pointing out your failures and watching you squirm is "keeping it alive" then you have less grasp of what is going on here than I even thought you had - and I thought you had next to zero grasp on it to begin with.

Every time you post, everyone reading this is reminded of the fact that you think the earth is 10,000 years old.

Couple of points for you to think about:

First, you're once again trying to twist what I said. I said I'm neutral on the subject, which is completely different from what you state here. Once again you try to play games and twist things and I point out how you're wrong.

Second, I have no problem at all with anyone knowing my stance on the subject (provided they know my true stance and not your twisted BS). I'm proud of being someone who thinks for himself and isn't a pathetic sheep following the masses off the cliff of commonly accepted information. I don't care what ignorant bullies such as yourself (and several others here) think of me or my opinions, because your ignorance shows how little you matter.

What people are also reminded of is how you lost the debate when you gave up (your first failure). They also get to see how you beg to restart the debate and fail to get that from me (a second failure). They also get to see your ignorant childish bullying tactics, such as insults and name calling. Two huge failures and the knowledge that you're an ignorant child are not good things, and yet they are your only accomplishments here.

Good, you're restarting the debate. We can finish it in the other thread. Thanks!